29 thoughts on “AT: Pelosi’s deceptive ‘impeachment vote’

  1. The AT piece has a lot of speculation in it. Not one piece of actual facts, just conjecture by right wing media sites. Fair enough. But I say let’s see what the resolution actually states before we condemn it.

    Oh wait. The right wing media machine is trying to do what Bill Barr did with regards to the Mueller Report: Trying to get a pro-Trump message out front to deceive or distract the people.

    As I said, lets’s see what the resolution actually says before jumping to conclusions.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Indeed let’s see.

      But it’s going to be a tough climb to restore legitimacy after what already has been done. Administration lawyers were not allowed to be present for the initial interviews to assert executive privilege where appropriate, and there will be bells in the transcripts that cannot be unrung.

      Likewise, normal rules of evidence were denied as well as the GOP members not being able cross examine and introduce contrary evidence.

      So, at this point the record is corrupted beyond repair.

      Then add in the selective leaking and releases of out-of-context snippets of testimony and even if the process were restarted before a different committee, calling the same witnesses all over again, it would be difficult to restore transparency and due process.

      So, let’s see. But if the process is anything other than a complete repudiation of all that has been done, and a clean start with examiners not present or tainted by the kangaroo court methods employed so far, the resolution will do nothing to restore the degree of fairness voters next fall will demand.

      Like

      1. Polly wanna cracker?

        Sad.

        The methods used at the current deposition phase are those put in place by the GOP in 2015 and used extensively by them in THEIR “investigations” notably multiple Benghazi inquiries. Contrary to Trumpist lies their are 47 GOP menbers of Congress fully participating in the closed door sessions.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Grand jury proceedings are indeed one sided, but their testimony and evidence are not leaked, piecemeal, to the press to destroy the reputations of people not indicted nor to influence public opinions or elections, because they are not intended to be fair. They can be grossly unfair because they have no effect beyond an accusation.

          To the contrary, their proceedings are kept secret by law because there is no standard of proof, only a finding of probable cause for determining the truth by a open and fair trial.

          If these inquiries were the equivalent of grand juries, Adam Schiff would be in prison by now for what he has divulged from an admittedly one sided proceeding.

          Like

      2. “But it’s going to be a tough climb, . . . and there will be bells in the transcripts that cannot be unrung.”

        Isn’t that what is done during the Senate’s “TRIAL”? Why do the Admin’s lawyers need to be present when The House is in its ‘fact-finding’ stage?

        What bells are you worried about which cannot be unrung? Surely not the information that well-respected, high-level government agents/ambassadors/etc., gave in this particular stage and WILL BE made known when the Senate actually enters THEIR part of the process.

        The secrecy in the beginning of an impeachment inquiry has been compared to the secrecy of the ‘Grand Jury’ process. I’ve been on one Grand Jury and no one is there to represent the alleged prosecuted person. Surely, you want to know what unconstitutional actions this ‘prez’ may have been involved in, or not . . . right?

        Liked by 2 people

    2. When there’s no one actually DEFENDING Donald J. Trump’s activities in requesting help (not once but at least twice) from a foreign entity to destroy his could-be opponent, I guess the GOP’s ONLY defense is to attack the process.

      I got a grand idea. Let’s just go ahead and “LOCK HIM UP”, throw away the key and be done with this asterisk-laden, America-loathing illegitimately-elected prez.

      Come on. Save time. save money, and get on with someone running the country who knows what the hell eh or she is doing.

      Just a suggestion.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Read the transcript.

        Trump asked for cooperation in investigating a wide range of Ukrainian corruption issues related to the 2016 election, much the same as the Mueller inquiry into Russian interference. Biden was mentioned only in connection with his boast about getting a prosecutor fired who was investigating a company that was bribing him through his son.

        Is it your contention that because Biden is running for President he is above the law?

        If you read the entire transcript, it is clear that Trump was well within his duties as chief law enforcement officer.

        Like

        1. At this point I’m not concerned about Biden, his or any of the Democrats running. That’ll change once there’s only one left to represent that party.

          It IS, however, my contention that enough high-level people who were ALERTED (or, as today’s witness ON THE CALL, himself) to the requests by ‘djt’ and what he was demanding in return. I’m concerned because it’s so very much like what the country heard from ‘djt’ before, that begin with . . . “Russia, if you’re listening . . . “

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “If you read the entire transcript, it is clear that Trump was well within his duties as chief law enforcement officer.“

          I read the “incomplete summary” 3 times….you are delusional.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Not only is the “incomplete summary” damning as it stands, we now know that references to Biden, Burisma and the “DNC server” were deliberately excluded from that summary.

            “Delusional” is very generous. Is anybody really so stupid that they really believe this egregiously corrupt behavior was only about fighting corruption? That seems unlikely in this case. That leaves only dishonesty – the deliberate spreading of lies.

            Liked by 2 people

        3. Yesterday’s testimony clears up the idea of the transcript being complete, contrary to Trump’s insistence that it was “comma for comma”. So reading the transcript does nothing to further Trump’s contention that it was a “perfect” call. In fact, the more that comes out, the worse it appears for him.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. “ Is anybody really so stupid that they really believe this egregiously corrupt behavior was only about fighting corruption?”

            Apparently some on this forum are…

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Up until this vote, the House was gathering information to see if there was enough to consider a full impeachment resolution.

    “… as well as the GOP members not being able cross examine…”

    Not true. There were 45 or so Republicans on the committees and there were allowed exactly the same amount of time to question the witnesses. Ironically, a bunch of those who stormed the secure room were also on those committees. And once the hearings are open, the regime and its supporters will be able to challenge everything that has been testified too and probably including the pass interference flag in the Kansas game.

    The Starr investigation, which was providing the evidence for the impeachment hearings, went on in secret for 6 years with a bunch of well orchestrated leaks to destroy the president and without his due process.

    With all the future hearings after the passage of the resolution on Thursday being public and all the due process of cross examination and calling witnesses, there will be plenty of opportunity for the regime to defend themselves before any trial, if that is the case, in the Senate.

    And that trial will not take place until there are about 14 more “human scum” Republicans that decide they have had enough of Trump’s nonsense.

    IMHO

    Liked by 4 people

    1. RE: “With all the future hearings after the passage of the resolution on Thursday being public and all the due process of cross examination and calling witnesses, there will be plenty of opportunity for the regime to defend themselves before any trial…”

      That’s exactly the question we don’t know the answer to. The AT piece cites several sources who think the resolution on Thursday may not grant any rights to the minority they don’t already possess. If, as speculated, Thursday’s vote does not expand transparency or due process, will you call for them?

      Like

      1. It is obvious that all this whining and complaining about the ongoing impeachment process is because there is no plausible defense of the criminal behavior that is already thoroughly documented in the public record.

        As the old aphorism goes – If you cannot argue the facts, argue the law. If you cannot argue the law then yell and pound the table. Or, in this case, reenact the Brooks Brothers riot of 2000.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. …”sources who think the resolution on Thursday may not grant any rights to the minority they don’t already possess”… SPECULATION, the entire article is speculation of what those in the right wing media bubble want people to be gullible enough to believe what they say is what is definitely going to happen.

        This piece holds little substance and right wing pro-Trump drivel. Yet some will believe it because of where it was sourced.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. “If, as speculated, Thursday’s vote does not expand transparency or due process, will you call for them?”

        Well, after reading what the GOP’s Kevin McCarthy had to say, I’d guess the Democrat’s answer to your question just might be . . . “Ah, NO!”

        McCarthy says: “It’s been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.

        Today’s backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start.

        We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment.”

        Hey, these guys/gals legitimized the fellow in the WH, and he certainly doesn’t sit in the Oval Office legitimately. They wouldn’t recognize ‘legitimate’ if it smacked them sideways.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. And will lose and lose and lose. (I think there may be one too many levels in my three.) The tactic of delay and deflect. Hopefully the courts will handle this in a timely manner. And see that Congress is allowed to set the rules in these things. The House on the investigation and the Senate on the trial.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: Hopefully the courts will handle this in a timely manner. And see that Congress is allowed to set the rules in these things.”

        Who’s speculating now?

        Like

      3. The DOJ is a joke under Barr. Of course they appealed. The vote in the House will make the issue moot which may be one reason to have it. Another reason will be to strengthen the Article of Impeachment that the current stonewalling should elicit.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s